I think you’ve proven my point as you’re contradicting yourself.
And if God did exist, we think God is a total dick
The Abrahamic conception of God is of an infinitely perfect being who’s attributes–viz., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence-- are maximally unified in that one being. So to suppose that this God exists but then deny his omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction of the definition of the Abrahamic God. (This is akin to, for example, supposing that a square-circle exists.) If God does exist, but he isn’t omnibenevolent, then this is no longer the Abrahamic God. Which is why I argued that you are not “taking the starting assumption seriously” in my earlier comment.
I think you’re making assumptions about what others would consider perfect or right.
You’re going with a very theist-centric view, and not considering others.
You are forcing the idea that an Abrahamic God is perfect. The very history of this world, even the Bible, shows to me that is complete bunk. I am saying, quite sincerely, what you are calling perfection I consider a serial killer. What you are calling perfection I view as a paragon of hatred. A psychotic, self indulgent, narcissistic baby-killer who revels in the suffering of others.
Your premise is faulty - you think God is perfect, others who think like I do view your perfect as a complete piece of shit.
The inability to see beyond your own feelings is the issue here. What you consider perfect is the problem, and why we would prefer Satan and hell.
Edit because I forgot before I sent:
So to suppose that this God exists but then deny his omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction of the definition of the Abrahamic God
Right. We consider the existence of God to be nonsense, because any god that was omnibenevolent wouldn’t be such a piece of shit, yet here we are in reality. Your premise is faulty.
Right. We consider the existence of God to be nonsense, because any god that was omnibenevolent wouldn’t be such a piece of shit, yet here we are in reality. Your premise is faulty.
Yes, you are once again proving my point that you aren’t taking the “starting assumption” (i.e. the existence of a perfect God) seriously. It’s perfectly fine if your conception of God is of a terrible serial killer, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, but now we aren’t talking about the same God.
Yours cannot possibly exist, and you aren’t allowing for any opinion other than your own.
So yes, if you want to assume there was some benevolent god, and the collective opinion of folks on heaven/hell would change.
But as that God cannot possibly exist, and has no basis in reality in so many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many… Many ways. Many.
So we are going off of the various religions and religious figures that do exist - and boy oh boy what hot garbage that God is! Including the one depicted by every Abrahamic religion. Which is why I keep saying your premise is broken, because the god depicted by Abrahamic religion is the garbage creature we do not want to be associated with.
I think you’ve proven my point as you’re contradicting yourself.
The Abrahamic conception of God is of an infinitely perfect being who’s attributes–viz., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence-- are maximally unified in that one being. So to suppose that this God exists but then deny his omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction of the definition of the Abrahamic God. (This is akin to, for example, supposing that a square-circle exists.) If God does exist, but he isn’t omnibenevolent, then this is no longer the Abrahamic God. Which is why I argued that you are not “taking the starting assumption seriously” in my earlier comment.
I think you’re making assumptions about what others would consider perfect or right.
You’re going with a very theist-centric view, and not considering others.
You are forcing the idea that an Abrahamic God is perfect. The very history of this world, even the Bible, shows to me that is complete bunk. I am saying, quite sincerely, what you are calling perfection I consider a serial killer. What you are calling perfection I view as a paragon of hatred. A psychotic, self indulgent, narcissistic baby-killer who revels in the suffering of others.
Your premise is faulty - you think God is perfect, others who think like I do view your perfect as a complete piece of shit.
The inability to see beyond your own feelings is the issue here. What you consider perfect is the problem, and why we would prefer Satan and hell.
Edit because I forgot before I sent:
Right. We consider the existence of God to be nonsense, because any god that was omnibenevolent wouldn’t be such a piece of shit, yet here we are in reality. Your premise is faulty.
Yes, you are once again proving my point that you aren’t taking the “starting assumption” (i.e. the existence of a perfect God) seriously. It’s perfectly fine if your conception of God is of a terrible serial killer, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, but now we aren’t talking about the same God.
Yours cannot possibly exist, and you aren’t allowing for any opinion other than your own.
So yes, if you want to assume there was some benevolent god, and the collective opinion of folks on heaven/hell would change.
But as that God cannot possibly exist, and has no basis in reality in so many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many… Many ways. Many.
So we are going off of the various religions and religious figures that do exist - and boy oh boy what hot garbage that God is! Including the one depicted by every Abrahamic religion. Which is why I keep saying your premise is broken, because the god depicted by Abrahamic religion is the garbage creature we do not want to be associated with.
It’s a logical fallacy to start with.